I hear America is looking for efficiency and reduced gvt spendings, I'd say the F35 program is a good candidate to start, especially since now many countries aren't so fond of the whole "send all of your military data to our best friends the US of A".
A decision to eject from a failing F-35B fighter and the betrayal in its wake
181–190 of 213 posts
Re: A decision to eject from a failing F-35B fighter and the betrayal in its wake
#182Saying the pilot did nothing wrong means the plane did something wrong; sell less expansive planes to foreign countries. Throw him under the bus; sell more expansive planes. I hear America is looking for efficiency and reduced gvt spendings, I'd say the F35 program is a good candidate to start, especially since now many countries aren't so fond of the whole "send all of your military data to our best friends the US o…
Re: A decision to eject from a failing F-35B fighter and the betrayal in its wake
#183They had one short sentence in there that he still had a tiny alternate primary flight display. Still had control surfaces. He knew he was descending and his authorized air space. Pull up, look at the pfd, do some resets, follow helmet malfunction protocols. There was very little about a devils advocate side to the story. I could imagine others joking about ejecting for minor warnings or trolling him. Especially in t…
Even if he would have trusted the alternative controls the jet has, he was in clouds over a densely populated area going 350mph just 750 feet above the ground, far below the 6000 feet the article quotes from the manual. "In fact, the F-35B’s flight manual said, “the aircraft is considered to be in out of controlled flight (OCF) when it fails to respond properly to pilot inputs,” adding, “if out of control below 6,000…
Re: A decision to eject from a failing F-35B fighter and the betrayal in its wake
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They don’t. If the U.S. wants to sell 100 F-35s to European nations, it will happen. How do you imagine that will work? The US may have to lower the price more than they can afford to. Some countries have already cancelled their F-35 orders. You can't force someone to buy what they don't want.
The F-35 was sold to us as an important multi billion business deal, with lots of European companies being promised to be subcontractors or technology partners; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning... has a good overview of how much was involved. Basically, you scratch my back, we'll scratch yours kind of deal. In hindsight, the project was (as expected) over budget etc. I wish our government(…
Re: A decision to eject from a failing F-35B fighter and the betrayal in its wake
#185Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You can't force someone to buy what they don't want. The opium wars would disagree
The United States using military force against the home territory of a NATO member basically guarantees Chinese troops and weapons in Canada and Mexico. We would (deservedly) force the world to ally against us as we’d have proven ourselves to be an expansionist menace.
Canada is absolutely indefensible with no strategic depth or ability to get new supplies. Mexico is harder to occupy but their military is a joke and again easy to block all external supplies. Very doable.
Re: A decision to eject from a failing F-35B fighter and the betrayal in its wake
#186Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well unless we in Europe want to do in direct conflict with US (ie for Greenland), this is mostly irrelevant extra capability. As Ukraine shows, peer conflicts are won by other means, not stealth air superiority over sheep herders with AKs. Some general's wet dream of dogfights in Maverick's style are modern day fantasies. What those planes are used for are just lobbing glide bombs or shooting missiles. Their biggest…
> As Ukraine shows, peer conflicts are won by other means, not stealth air superiority I don't think you can conclude that when neither of the belligerents has the capability. As Gulf War shows, training and capabilities (including stealth) do enable SEAD/DEAD to an extent that unlocks air superiority.
Re: A decision to eject from a failing F-35B fighter and the betrayal in its wake
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
True. However, did you notice the emojis used in relation to the leaked Huthi attack? It’s difficult to place confidence in individuals wielding significant power when they conduct themselves like adolescents.
This doesn’t feel fair. The standards we have for how elected officials conduct themselves is very different from what we expect from non-political career civil servants, General Officers, and the like. At our most charitable, we ought to recognize that in a democracy elected officials are plucked from the ranks of the general public. The qualifications for office are that you are the most popular person in the room,…
Re: A decision to eject from a failing F-35B fighter and the betrayal in its wake
#188Earlier quoted context omitted.
The United States using military force against the home territory of a NATO member basically guarantees Chinese troops and weapons in Canada and Mexico. We would (deservedly) force the world to ally against us as we’d have proven ourselves to be an expansionist menace.
Even serious discussion of Chinese soldiers in Canada or Mexico is clear casus belli and surefire way for those countries to be occupied. Chinese soldiers on the border is existential to US and when dealing with existential risks countries tend to put funny concepts such as UN charter or human rights aside. Canada is absolutely indefensible with no strategic depth or ability to get new supplies. Mexico is harder to o…
Re: A decision to eject from a failing F-35B fighter and the betrayal in its wake
#189It's not a bad practice to automatically dismiss any pilot who ejects from a plane (other than test pilots) except in cases which are wholly obvious equipment failures. It will ensure that for these planes which cost hundreds of millions of dollars, the pilot doesn't eject unless, yes, they really fucking need to eject. Will this mean you accidentally fire some great pilots? Yes. But given the cost of these airplanes…
Re: A decision to eject from a failing F-35B fighter and the betrayal in its wake
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
The United States using military force against the home territory of a NATO member basically guarantees Chinese troops and weapons in Canada and Mexico. We would (deservedly) force the world to ally against us as we’d have proven ourselves to be an expansionist menace.
Even serious discussion of Chinese soldiers in Canada or Mexico is clear casus belli and surefire way for those countries to be occupied. Chinese soldiers on the border is existential to US and when dealing with existential risks countries tend to put funny concepts such as UN charter or human rights aside. Canada is absolutely indefensible with no strategic depth or ability to get new supplies. Mexico is harder to o…
Talk of the Chinese being invited in by Canada or Mexico is precisely as much of a casus belli as Ukraine saying "please let us join NATO so Russia won't invade us!". Canada already has reason to fear invasion regardless, as Trump keeps talking about annexing them.
It didn't work out well for Russia, which is currently experiencing in Ukraine much what the US itself experienced in Vietnam. Or indeed in Cuba (Bay of Pigs) the year before the nuclear missiles which were much closer to a real casus belli.